Feingold Envy.

[JohnnyCougar]

Why is it that that the majority of people here that are criticizing Feingold have another '08 primary candidate in their profile? I've had my "Draft Russ" banner on here for over a year, but I still get behind any other Democrat when they do something great, even if they may be one of Russ' primary opponents in the future. The people who are trashing Russ are so very transparent on here, and are probably doing more of a disservice to the candidates they are promoting by doing it. The reason for their transparency is the particular weakness of their talking points. So let's go through them one by one.

Feingold's move is a disaster because he didn't consult other Democrats
Since when did you have to consult "other Democrats" to make a move? Feingold probably purposefully did not consult fellow Democrats on this issue, because we all know what the result would have been. They wouldn't have supported it, and it would have given other Democrats time to mount more of an anti-censure media campaign and marginalize Feingold before he could build up support with the base. Feingold's failure to consult the Democratic leadership on this issue is what made it a success. The public supports this move:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/

Heck, even 29% of Republicans support it. So who is this going to hurt? No one but Bush. And even if Russ didn't consult Democrats on this, other Democrats have already had plenty of time by now to hop on board. But many of them haven't.

Censure will rule out impeachment
No it won't. It most certainly won't. And if you are going to impeach Bush, you have a better chance of doing it over the Iraq war misinformation than you do over warrantless wiretapping. So it shouldn't be much of an issue anyway. But just because Bush is censured over this does not mean he can't be impeached later. The truth is, censure is a much better way to approach this issue right now. Sometimes it is more effective to get a few jabs and hooks in first rather than go for the knockout punch right away. And censure would surely weaken an already crippled Bush. Despite what Feingold says about impeachment being an extreme measure, he is simply framing the debate in a way that makes censure look more reasonable. Because he wants censure to succeed. He has gone on record multiple times saying that what Bush did is "right in the strike zone of high crimes and misdemeanors," which is obviously language that shows that he thinks impeachment for this issue is on the table, but that we're just not there yet. The important thing now is that someone is standing up to Bush and trying to hold him accountable for his actions. No one else was doing this in the Senate before now. Right now it does not matter how they are trying to hold Bush accountable, it just matters that someone is trying to do it at all. And the fact that 29% of Republicans support censure tells a lot. This will back Republicans into a corner and force them to either stand with the law or the law breaker. The more we can get congressional Republicans on record as standing up for Bush before 2006, the better. Because connecting sitting Republicans to Bush will almost certainly spell their doom in November.

Feingold is grandstanding for '08
Bullshit. I, being from Wisconsin, know Russ. He doesn't grandstand. He speaks his mind. And holding Bush accountable is on every Democrat's mind, and even close to a third of Republicans'. Russ is the definition of an "in touch" politician. He travels around Wisconsin to every single county and holds meetings with the public where they can air their concerns to him. He knows what the people feel and want. He listens to the people, and does what he feels is right. If he disagrees with you, he will not pander or make some slick political statement. He will explain his position while still respecting your point of view. He values the people's opinions. Russ' attempt to censure Bush is a result of him being in touch with the Democratic base, something that few other Democrats can claim. And it is a result of doing his job. His job, as a Senator, is to hold Bush accountable to the laws of the United States. And he is one of the few that is doing it. He knows what it means to be a representative of the people. Most Democrats don't.

**************

So there you have it. Any other weak talking points people want to throw at Feingold?

[hang a left]

1. I have to recommend your outstanding post.

and I agree.

[ClassWarrior]

49. Me too. CALL AGAIN EVERYBODY!!

Keep asking your Senators the Magic Question:

"Does the Senator support censure... or criminal activity?"

Call EVERY DAY and demand an answer till you get one.

Then don't give up after you get one. The aides will try to tell you that the Senator wants to "wait for there to be a full investigation."

Fine. Ask them if the Senator really trusts Arlen Spectre and the Republicon cronies to investigate the criminal activities of their boy GW**...

Ask them if they've heard the report that the FBI was spying on peace groups before the Iraq invasion, and remind them that spying on political enemies includes Democratic Senators and their aides...

Ask them if their silence makes them accessories to a crime...

And...

Never Give Up.

[liberalpress]

96. My Senators are both republicans. I already have their answer

[Oversea Visitor]

2. Whee

if cant even censure dont even dream of impeachment.

Censure good
About time to call bullshit bullshit

This tip toeing just making things more mess
2006 election soon censure the crap out of him
Let see them all sings

[magellan]

3. Looks like the weak talking point crew has retired for the night

But you get a recommendation from me.

[IsItJustMe]

4. I totally agree with what Russ is doing. Let me play devils advocate:

The polls show that most people don't feel strongly about this issue (domestic wiretapping). This is not why chimps poll numbers are down.
So, on a political basis, how is this Censure motion going to help the Dems?

I believe Russ is straight out doing it on conviction, but I still wonder what purpose it will serve. Nothing happens to chimp as a result.

[JohnnyCougar]

5. It would make him look weak and vulnerable.

And act as a wedge issue with Republicans. Clearly, a good chunk of Republicans are pissed off at Bush for this issue, as well. And it also makes the Democrats look like they stand for something, and are strong enough to be put in charge of this country.

[Usrename]

12. The polls, or rather public opinion, is what it should be about.

One third of a nation believes that their leader is guided by God. They will follow him. Those people are his 33%. I'm not writing them off or anything, just making a quick observation.

Another third believes he is a member of an unholy criminal cabal that feeds on corruption and greed. We oppose him.

The remaining third of the people have been terrified. They do not share the hard political views of either side. They are good and patriotic people. They have been taught that we who oppose the current leadership have no message. We are weak and disorganized flip-floppers that cannot communicate an alternative to the present leadership. They are scared. They see the unity and strength of the ruling neo-con cabal and are drawn to it. They are scared. We can win them to our cause.

There is much discussion here, and on other boards, about progressives and unity. We seem to view having independent thoughts and ideas as a signature of strength or character. Most people recognize another type of strength more easily. It is the strength displayed by the repukes in their loyalty and unity. To us it just seems like lockstep mindlessness, but that is where their real power comes from. People who are not politically passionate see it, and respect it. They always stand together.

The fight over censure should be between the Senators on our side (Democrats) and the Senators that are the Bush supporters (Republicans). The middle Americans, those in the general public who do not take part in the fight, will be watching. I believe they will support our cause, the call for censure in this case, if we show enough unity and strength to allow them to set aside their fear of us and listen to our message.

Here is the real problem, though. I am not convinced that the Party leadership will ever rally to Feingold's call. So we may get to watch the death rattle of the Democratic Party. If the Party can't muster unanimous support for censuring this criminal then they are accomplices in my mind. I don't know why this is difficult to comprehend, but a lot of posters here think that the Party can just leave Russ twisting in the wind, surrendering him to the enemy, and everything will just be business as usual. But that would be actively supporting tyranny wouldn't it? Who would want to belong to a party like that? That actively supports tyranny? Color me gone if it comes to that.

It is reasonable to ask why I think that the Party leaders won't support this censure. My opinion is that they are controlled by the same corporate masters that control Bush. It is the simplest explanation. All the levers of power have fallen into the same hands. That is why there is not more resistance.

[IsItJustMe]

13. I have also had deep contemplations regarding this statement.

...My opinion is that they are controlled by the same corporate masters that control Bush...

My heart and thought as of late has been heavy because of a thought, a possible conclusion, the same as yours. Say it ain't so.

If this is true; indeed, we have some dark days ahead. There is no doubt in my mind that the very existance of America is dependant upon a loyal oposition. Our entire constitution is based upon checks and balances. Let's hope we have more true patriots in our government like Russ Feingold.

[Usrename]

14. I think Russ is aware of this monster.

Astonishing courage to poke it in the eye like that. But if he can gather the momentum of the people, who knows what other revelations will come to light? I imagine that all sorts of people have been afraid (and for good reason) to speak out about all sorts of things. The truth is going to be exposed now, I think, one way or another.

I just wish I knew if this story is going to have a happy ending. It is far more likely that it will all go terribly, terribly wrong. The reverberating silence from the party leadership does not make me confident that anything good will happen in the near future. This may be the last, best hope. The world is watching.

[IsItJustMe]

17. Well, I for one, know that Russ must have Benjamin Franklin in mind.

I have noticed the silence also. The silence is unsettling and profound. Only one other Senator has come out in support of Russ. There is something wrong. Strange days indeed.



Benjamin Franklin:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[EVDebs]

65. Schoepehauer's 3 Phases of Truth comes to mind also !

The Case for Impeachment
Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006. An excerpt from an essay in the March 2006 Harper's Magazine. By Lewis H. Lapham.
http://www.harpers.org/TheCaseForImpeachment.html

The NYTimes was always an Operation Mockingbird mouthpiece for catapulting propaganda for what is so obvious by now a failed presidency. De facto if not now de jure (despite they won't publish it).

When common knowledge surpasses entrenched powers, as is the case now, then the 'theory' of Bush being a failure will be accepted:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."--Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

[WiseButAngrySara]

90. Thanks so much for the link to Lapham's article! ....n/t

[Usrename]

126. Yes, I forgot to thank you.

The article is so good that I printed it and forgot to come back and say thanks. Thanks! :)

[PassingFair]

100. Two...

Boxer and Harkin

[EVDebs]

108. Congress allowed this fiasco with the two AUMFs

authorizing use of military force. THEY granted Bush 'at his determination' the ability to use military force despite the fact that each AUMF contains the War Powers Act of 1973 as being not abrogated. In fact, each AUMF breaches the WPAof'73 by having Congress delegate ITS warmaking authority to Bush.

Such a boneheaded act by Congress isn't something THEY would want to 'fess up to. But we're at that point now. The WPA of '73 also requires clarity of purpose and truthful 'circumstances' and 'situations' BEFORE troops are committed. In the case of Iraq, we have only Bush and neocon fantasies of WMDs in Saddam's hands. Pretext was delegated, in other words, to the Pentagon to fabricate at will.

[dave29]

28. A clarification

on public opinion... 33% of the people who vote, not the nation, are irrationally backing Bush because of their belief he is driven by God.

Half of the people in this country do not vote, and therefore you are actually talking about 16.5% of the nation. The same for the rest of the percentages.

There is, as there has always been... a silent majority.

[radio4progressives]

109. well said username... you've nailed it right on the head..

it's sad and pathetic realization, but true observation none the less.

And what's even sadder, is that several politico' members on this board will defend the corporatists who refuse to take meaningful action to hold this tyrant and his accompices accountable. They either actually believe in their hearts, or they are merely hoping beyond hope that there will be a "democratic victory" in the up coming mid-terms which will lead to impeachment/and or accountability.

Even if the Dems get control of the Diebold tabulator engineers to flip elections our way handing us a victory, or an honest election results in a Democratic victory, neither impeachment nor accountability will ever occur. That process should have begun a long time ago.

The Dubai ports exposed the myth that the Dems have no power to impact on policy matters. The handicap of "mintority" status, has been used to promote the myth that they have no power at all to impact public opinion which is the key to effecting policy changes and holding congress critters to accountability - regardless of which party is in power.

[smoogatz]

16. Depends on the poll and how it's worded.

People support wiretapping al Qaeda operatives, obviously. But they don't support warrantless wiretaps of American citizens, and they certainly wouldn't support massive government data-mining, if the question was ever put to them.

[IsItJustMe]

18. Well, thats the problem. I would say that 70% of this country does not

even really know what data mining is. You and I, are to some degree computer literacy. But for a lot of folks, the potential abuse of such information gathering techniques, is beyond them.

[Le Taz Hot]

105. Nothing will happen as a result?

Um, don't look now but the progressive base just jumped on the Russ train.

[Swamp Rat]

6. kick and recommended!!!

STRIKE WHILE THE IRON IS HOT!!!

SUPPORT FEINGOLD!!!

:patriot:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

74. Or

STRIKE WHILE THE POWDER IS DRY!!!
SUPPORT FEINGOLD!!!

[APPLE314]

7. AMEN N/T

[BigBearJohn]

8. Today's Democratic motto - "just sit dow, shut up and take it" Be polite

FUCK THAT

And whatEVER you do, please don't show any ball
or backbone.

[PassingFair]

101. Time for Ted! You are the winning post!

[JNelson6563]

9. Hammer, meet nail

:patriot:

[B Calm]

10. It's not just democrats. Last week republicans were trying to distance

themselves from Bush, but something scared them too.. Could it be they all know our votes don't count anymore and their fear over losing their job is more important than the will of the people?

[glitch]

31. Or something worse. Perhaps they fear the CIC/executive branch will stand

down for another domestic attack.

[cali]

11. Well,

I don't have another candidate, I support Censure and I think all dem Senators need to get on board, BUT he should have told/consulted with other dem Senators. You asked since when has a Senator had to consult other Senators before making a move? Since forever. I spoke to someone who used to be on staff for a Senator and she said it's is absolutely customary for a Senator to consult with other Senators of his/her party before making a public move that effects all other dems of that party. She further said that Feingold had antogonized a lot of folks by not doing so. Your argument that an anti-censure movement might have gotten underway doesn't hold water. There's nothing another dem could have done to stop Feingold. His failure to consult or get other co-sponsors is most certainly not a success. Just saying so without providing a single argument to back up that claim, doesn't make it so.

I support Censure. I've been in touch with Senators Leahy and Jeffords urging them to support it. I agree that it won't harm putative future impeachment efforts, and I don't question Feingold's motives. I think he a stand up guy and I'd be happy to support him for President, but announcing his plans on a Sunday morning talking head show? A tactical error.

[Just Me]

15. Both Conyers and Feingold have taken courageous stands on,...

,...our behalf. They are standing up to the bullies who have openly OPENLY abused their power and exploited our people.

They speak for me. They fight for me. I am grateful. :patriot:

[EVDebs]

66. Speaking truth to power, be assured that even if you stand alone

you are still in the majority !

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."--Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

The truth is: Bush needs to be impeached. The sooner the better. Harper's magazine knows this, others will inevitably follow suit.

[Vinnie From Indy]

19. Good analysis of the talking points

Alot of these unwilling and hesitant Senators are behaving this way because of their own personal ambitions to be the candidate in '08. They are calculating the damage to their chances if Feingold succeeds in leading the only effective rebuke ever given the boy king.

This issue in regard to Democrats is much more about winning the Dem nomination than it is about BushCo.

[Coexist]

20. Great post

k 'n r

[MH1]

21. You left out - Feingold attacking other Dems publicly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=678466&mesg_id=680370

Yes, I have a quote by another probable '08 candidate in my profile. But I was 100% behind Russ (on his censure motion) until he made that statement.

Notice, that if you follow that link, it is to a comment on a thread that is bashing Mark Dayton for publicly criticizing Feingold - on Thursday, 2 days after Feingold publicly called Democrats who didn't immediately prostrate themselves to his censure motion "cowards". Oh, the irony, the irony.

Meanwhile, while Feingold's censure motion - which is good in its essence - drew the activists attention away, Pay-Go failed by only one vote, and a ridiculous budget bill which includes drilling in ANWR passed by only 2 votes.

So I guess that's a second criticism you left out - timing. Diversion of attention away from these other important matters. I'm not sure when would have been a good time to introduce it, but it really bugs me that the discussion of censure - which is really meaningless in terms of any concrete result - has trumped discussion of actual concrete matters like Iraq, Iran, and the deficit. (What is Russ' position on the deficit anyway? Why did he want to divert attention just at the time when the deficit could get some attention - during the budget debate? Or was he just not considering that effect of his motion?)

[Vinnie From Indy]

22. Concrete matters?

That's no way to win an election! :)

[jsamuel]

25. Yet again, Feingold was right. Publicly right...

I sent that out to my friends because this is what ALL OF THEM have been saying over the past 4 years. First Dems must face up to it PUBLICLY and try to fix it. First step is acknowledgment.

[Usrename]

27. Yes, someone must stand up for cowardice.

Can we get a bumper sticker or a slogan or something. How about:

"Cowards must be nurtured, not attacked"

or:

"Don't scare the cowards"

or:

"Shhh.. no loud noises, cowards on board"

Of course they are so easily frightend, that is why they are cowards.

[MH1]

30. So, double standards are the new standard of Feingold supporters?

It's okay for Feingold to publicly attack Dems who didn't bow to him but not okay for one of those attacked to return the favor?

(For the record, I think BOTH were wrong.)

[jsamuel]

33. Free speech, you can say what you want. Just don't expect everyone to

agree with you.

No one has said that either one shouldn't be allowed to speak. Who said that it was wrong that someone criticize Feingold in public?

[MH1]

36. See the responses to this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=678466&mesg_id=678466

Although it seems there are more posts supporting Dayton than I thought there were before.

Frankly I think it is best for Democrats not to bash each other -publicly - at all. Lieberman always catches hell here at DU and other blogs for doing that; if it's wrong for him to do it, why is it okay for Feingold to do it?

What did Kerry say about those who didn't support him on the Alito filibuster? I am sure he didn't use words like "cowering" or "run and hide" to describe his Democratic colleagues. I just think that's a classier approach. Free speech may allow anything - but class and teamwork demand diplomacy.

[jsamuel]

41. Let me say:

1. Criticizing all democrats, publicly, is bad (even though he was correct). (Like Bayh did with the "weak" thing.)
2. Criticizing a trait of democrats, publicly, has to be correct and can be a good thing to improve the party. (Like Feingold did.)
3. Criticizing one democrat (fellow Senator), publicly and maliciously, is bad (even if they are correct). (Like Dayton did.)

I am not as black and white as you.

[Usrename]

34. I don't get the double-standard. Really, I don't.

I think that Democratic Senators should stand up to Bush and bow to Feingold.

They (you?) are saying that they should stand up to Feingold and bow to Bush.

Unfortunately, I think many of them disagree with me on this. But just where is the double-standard? We just have opposite views.

[MH1]

35. I was referring to the idea that Feingold is allowed to publicly bash

Democrats, yet Mark Dayton was bashed here at DU for publicly criticizing Feingold's approach.

To me that is a double standard.

On edit: it also occurs to me that Lieberman is often chastised here for criticizing other Dems. Hmm.

[Usrename]

40. Oh, OK. I didn't quite make the proper connection there.

It's sort of a stretch to compare the two things. Russ wants to criticize the President for crimes, and Dayton wants to criticize Russ for not following some protocol. Harkin is signed on already, and I would be very surprised if Russ didn't know that he had an ally there. But who knows, maybe Russ is just completely out of control and has lost all his marbles. I don't think so, and Dayton is probably an idiot for thinking that.

But I really don't know either of them, so who's to say? Seems kind of weak (or stupid) to me to oppose something just because you got left out of the loop. But that does seem to be Dayton's argument. (I just went back and reread his criticism - two things; it was being left out of the loop; and it's an overreaching step. Overreaching? Wha...? )


Feingold says they are cowards, and they are, he is right. Dayton says Feingolds measure is overreaching, and it isn't overreaching to censure a President for willfully violating the Fourth Amendment and the FISA laws. He is wrong.

One of these people is wrong, completely wrong, and the other one is right, completely right. There is a difference between right and wrong. Not a double-standard at all.

[PassingFair]

102. Don't you think we might consider the REASON

for the criticism?

Jeez.

Lieberman et. al, criticize other dems FOR TELLING THE TRUTH.

YOU make NO sense.

[radio4progressives]

115. Again, very well put.

:applause:

[JohnnyCougar]

37. With all due respect...

Feingold publicly called Democrats who didn't immediately prostrate themselves to his censure motion "cowards"

He didn't call them cowards. He asked a question about why someone would be "cowering" in the corner. That is very different from calling someone a coward, which is a direct personal insult.

And it's laughable that the move to censure "drew attention away" from ANWR and paygo. Is it not true that all Democrats voted against these bills anyways? What more could we have done to stop these if there was no movement to censure? This is a really weak argument, as well.

As far as Russ' position on the deficit, he is one of the most responsible Democrats when it comes to spending wisely.

I just can't get over the opposition to someone when they do something right. I don't know why you get upset when Feingold uses the term "cowering" indirectly to try and give his fellow Democrats a kick in the butt. It was high time someone said that publicly.

[MH1]

38. Heh.

Many, many threads at DU and dkos have treated Russ as a hero for his statement, and have equated his statement with calling Democrats cowards.

I strongly disagree with Feingold making that statement publicly - whether or not one equates "cowering" with "coward" or "cowardice". (Say the words one after another. They won't be equated in people's minds? Come on. But, regardless.)

I don't believe it was high time - because I don't believe it is true. One might say that Feingold "cowered" on Alito, by refusing to use his Judiciary Comittee position to push a filibuster...or on Roberts by voting for him. But I would disagree with those too. I can criticize Feingold's, or anyone else's position without making a broad brush attack on their character or will. Perhaps - could it be? - the person just holds a different position on the issue.

So, we disagree on that one.

As for the other items on the agenda, we may not have changed the votes - or possibly we could have moved one more moderate republican on paygo, and no, Landrieu (D) voted for the budget with ANWR drilling included - BUT we could have drawn more media attention while the issues were topical. Those votes are history now, and any activism will have much less effect now than when the bills were live.

Originally I was cheering the censure move by Feingold. But I don't like him attacking other Dems, and the more I know about how it came about, the less I think that what he did was "right" at this time.

Anyway the main purpose of my post was literally to point out these other reasons for disagreeing with Feingold's move. You don't have to agree with my take on them, but they are other reasons that have been raised on other threads.

[sendero]

62. "Cowards"..

... is the nicest trait you could attribute to the actions of the Dem senate for the last 5 years (with only brief flashes of good).

Here are some others: pandering, corrupt, appeasers, indecisive, pantywaists. You want more, I've got them in spades.

You know why Feingold gets a pass? Because we've been sitting here for 5 goddam years waiting for someone ANYONE to stand up to the commically bad leadership from George Bush an no one will.

Now that some one has, they have my total respect, and if they want to accuse the Dem senate of "cowering" all I can say to those offended is "the truth hurts, doesn't it".

[Mass]

93. NObody? Thanks for Boxer, Harkin, Murtha, Conyers, Kucinich

, (just from the top of my head) and others.

So it is not that nobody does.

NOw, if you want to blast all Democrats, fine for you (I am not talking about Feingold here, I am fine with the censure, just tired to speak about Democrats rather than talking about how Bush is bad.)


Peace.

[MH1]

94. Yes Feingold gets a pass: Time and again. DSM, Alito - next, Kempthorne?

Just a few that come to mind:

Ashcroft (at least he learned and voted against Abu Gonzales.)
Norton
Rice
Roberts
Alito
Pay as you Go (listed for changing the conversation at exactly the wrong time)
Downing Street Memo - remember that??? Hardly anything to challenge the Bush admin on, huh?

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?page_id=1022
http://www.kerry.senate.gov/v3/headlines/pdf/SSCI_Letter_Downing_Street.pdf

June 22, 2005

The Honorable Pat Roberts, Chairman
The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV, Vice Chairman
United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
SH-211
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller:

We write concerning your committee’s vital examination of pre-war Iraq intelligence failures. In particular, we urge you to accelerate to completion the work of the so-called “Phase II” effort to assess how policy makers used the intelligence they received.

Last year your committee completed the first phase of a two-phased effort to review the pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Phase I-begun in the summer of 2003 and completed in the summer of 2004-examined the performance of the American intelligence community in the collection and analysis of intelligence prior to the war, including an examination of the quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence on ties between Saddam Hussein’s regime and terrorist groups. At the conclusion of Phase I, your committee issued an unclassified report that made an important contribution to the American public’s understanding of the issues involved.

In February 2004-well over a year ago-the committee agreed to expand the scope of inquiry to include a second phase which would examine the use of intelligence by policy makers, the comparison of pre-war assessments and post-war findings, the activities of the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the Office of Special Plans in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the use of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress.

The committee’s efforts have taken on renewed urgency given recent revelations in the United Kingdom regarding the apparent minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior national security advisors. These minutes-known as the “Downing Street Memo”-raise troubling questions about the use of intelligence by American policy makers-questions that your committee is uniquely situated to address.

The memo indicates that in the summer of 2002, at a time the White House was promising Congress and the American people that war would be their last resort, that they believed military action against Iraq was “inevitable.”

The minutes reveal that President “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

The American people took the warnings that the administration sounded seriously-warnings that were echoed at the United Nations and here in Congress as we voted to give the president the authority to go to war. For the sake of our democracy and our future national security, the public must know whether such warnings were driven by facts and responsible intelligence, or by political calculation.

These issues need to be addressed with urgency. This remains a dangerous world, with American forces engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other challenges looming in Iran and North Korea. In this environment, the American public should have the highest confidence that policy makers are using intelligence objectively-never manipulating it to justify war, but always to protect the United States. The contents of the Downing Street Memo undermine this faith and only rigorous Congressional oversight can determine the truth.

We urge the committee to complete the second phase of its investigation with the maximum speed and transparency possible, producing, as it did at the end of Phase I, a comprehensive, unclassified report from which the American people can benefit directly.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

Co-signers: Sens. Tim Johnson, Jon Corzine, Jack Reed, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Edward Kennedy, Thomas Harkin, Jeff Bingaman, Richard Durbin

I don't see Feingold's name there. What, was he "cowering"? "Running and hiding"?

Yeah, if I go by your standards, I could snort at Feingold's record of "standing up" to George Bush on issues that matter. But, I recognize that even our best Senators view issues differently - and some place more value on certain high profile issues, than others. I guess Feingold didn't think it was important to investigate the Downing Street Memo, or rally a filibuster against Alito - his job, as a member of Judiciary Committee - when Kerry picked up the ball Kerry was accused of being "too late" but it was Feingold's job in the first place - or put any effort to block ANY of Bush's nominees. Will Feingold lay down again for Kempthorne? Even one of the Nelson's is making an effort to block Kempthorn! But Feingold won't. Unless maybe he's seen the light?

[sendero]

98. "(with only brief flashes of good)"

Apparently, some of you cannot read.

It's always the same people with the same agenda who come here to make the same apologies "he stood up once in a while".

Yes, I'm having an irrational exuberance moment. So what, when you are a Dem you have to take them whenever you can find them.

[radio4progressives]

116. Do you disagree that the Dems are acting like Cowards?

And have been for the past decade (or longer)but most significantly during this administration?

and do you think that this critism is not shared by most of the rank and file?

[jane_pippin]

53. Here's what he had to say about calling them out:

From his press conference this week. (entire transcript here: http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006316.html) :

QUESTION: You talk about your Democratic colleagues sort of
cowering about this issue. (OFF-MIKE) You look at all the polls
getting consistently worse and the sort of frozen response. It's not
like Democrats are against the idea, it's like they don't really even
know how to express themselves on the issue.

Why is that? Is one of the ideas here to break through that...

FEINGOLD: Yes.

QUESTION: ... and try to get people more assertive?

FEINGOLD: When I used that word, which is a strong word, I used
it in the form of a question: Why would people cower at a time when
the president's numbers are so low? That was the context.

And it is puzzling to me, after having sat in that caucus in
October 2002 and hearing senators express enormous anxieties about
this Iraq war, to see them respond to presidential intimidation in a
way that caused, I think, a number of senators to vote for this war
who really didn't think it was a good idea.

There is a tendency in our party, unfortunately, that we have to
break through, to be afraid of taking a strong stand and stick to it.

What the American people want are people that believe in
something. And so when we got out there and are strong on trying to
have some kind of a timetable to end the Iraq war, that was a positive
for us. But then we backed off.

When we got strong on the USA Patriot Act last fall, that was a
strong moment for us. We looked like we believed in something. But
then too many of my colleagues caved.

This is the same kind of thing. There were enormous
condemnations of this NSA program, not just from Democrats, but from
Republicans. Almost everybody said, this is really pretty outrageous.
But there's this tendency, as soon as the president and the spin
machine comes out and says, "This mean you folks are soft on
terrorism," we let them intimidate us.

And I think that just shows us to be weak rather than a party
that's ready to govern the country. And we need to show that we're
strong. This is a way to do it.

Just putting it out there for your consideration.

[MH1]

59. Well, if that's his rationalization,

I don't find it very convincing and I don't think it excuses his behavior.

I don't think Dems should be trashing other Dems. Period. Makes no difference whether the offender is named Lieberman, Biden, Kerry, Reid, Clinton - OR Feingold.

And I do consider what Feingold said to be "trashing." I don't think it will make any of the other Dems respect him more, or be more "assertive". (I think many of those he insulted are plenty assertive. Just because they didn't run to anoint HIS way of approaching the NSA issue, doesn't say squat about their assertiveness. To insinuate that this one issue, and this issue ONLY, defines each Senator is also insulting, as well as idiotic.) What it probably WILL do is make them resent him, and take opportunities to undercut him in the future. Since I agree with probably 98% of his issue positions, I think that would be a bad thing. But it's what I think will happen. Unless he patches things up.

Just my opinion though.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

78. Can we get a copy of that list?

...a number of senators to vote for this war who really didn't think it was a good idea.

I got a damn good idea but I'd still like to see it.

[MH1]

95. There was no "vote for war".

Looks like Feingold is again undermining the party for his own ends.

Calling IWR a "vote for war" is factually incorrect as well as a Rovian frame. Why would a "Democrat" use a Rovian frame? Gee...I can't imagine.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

99. Correct.

There was only a vote to give Chimp virtually unlimited authority to wage the Iraq abomination. Iow, an abduction of their constitutional duties and a de facto vote for war.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

This dispute over what the IWR was has been fought here many times. I'll stand by my interpretation and I'll respect your right to believe otherwise.

[MH1]

97. Here's a list for you

Those who wanted to investigate the LIES of the administration in starting the Iraq war:

John Kerry

Co-signers: Sens. Tim Johnson, Jon Corzine, Jack Reed, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Edward Kennedy, Thomas Harkin, Jeff Bingaman, Richard Durbin

http://www.kerry.senate.gov/v3/headlines/pdf/SSCI_Letter_Downing_Street.pdf

TEN senators who stood up to the administration on their lies leading up to the war - TEN. Feingold chose not to stand with them. And Kerry gave at least 2 or 3 weeks of notice and discussion before submitting this letter to the Intelligence Committee - plenty of time for Feingold to have decided he cared enough to join them.

You know, DSM and other evidence that has been uncovered - despite the lack of investigation, that investigation that Feingold apparently didn't want - shows that Bush would have gone to war in Iraq no matter what. Is it possible that getting a little more understanding of that fact by the American public, would undermine the ability of a certain lone senator to bash his colleagues for a vote that was substantially irrelevant to whether the Iraq war actually happened? A vote that oh by the way, was artfully timed by the republicans to force a vote just before the mid-term elections? I guess some here would have preferred a filibuster-proof republican majority of 60-40 though, when Dems got voted out because of the mood of the country at the time when they didn't support the IWR (which was heavily sold as "not a vote for war"; "war is not inevitable"; "we need to show Saddam that America is unified").

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

104. Ah, yes. The "We Were Misled" defense.

"In 2003, I was saying, where are the ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda? Where are these ties to 9/11? I knew it, where the f**k were these Democrats who said, 'We were misled.' Fuck you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic." - George Clooney

[ProSense]

106. Maybe you should tell these people they are wasting there time

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/515

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

125. ???????

:freak:

[MH1]

111. Ah, so Bush's lies are irrelevant? Just because you and Clooney

thought he was lying as far back as October 2002 (neither one of you running for re-election to anything, I presume) then it doesn't matter that Bush lied, and that the Iraq War was planned to happen regardless what Congress did or didn't do?

Well Feingold apparently agrees with you, that it doesn't matter at all how Bush lied.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

124. Outrageous!

Of all the low-down, dirty, rotten things!

Chimp's lies aren't irrelevant, the excuse that they were is.



Plese refrain from putting words in my mouth. I find them distasteful.

[radio4progressives]

118. Thank you for the transcript, very on point ..

[radio4progressives]

113. cognitive dissonance and false dichotemy

on the matter of the bills that got passed, the Censure was no "diversion" whatsoever - the Censure resolution did not preclude or prevent any Democratic leader to bring these matters to the attention of the American people - but they didn't. The votes for it were already bought and paid for.

on the matter of Senator Feingold calling on Democratic Senators to hold this president accountable by getting on board with the Censure resolution... it's really very obvious that Sen. Feingold knew full well that the Dems would do as they are doing, and he's attempting to hold them accountable on this as well. I strongly suspect that Sen Feingold had already consulted and sought the backing of the party members for months if not longer on this issue. Sometimes, certain things must not be simply disregarded no matter who refuses to stand up for the people.

[buddysmellgood]

23. It's a sad day when doing the right thing is considered "grand standing"

[jsamuel]

24. Thanks, absolutely!

[leftchick]

26. holding bush accountable is CLEARLY not on these Dem's minds

Democrats leery of call for censure
Rebuke of Bush may backfire, some fear

<snip>

"It's not impeachment, but it's not something you apply lightly," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said. "And whether we want to start applying censure motions or impeachment when there are questions about a president's authority in national security is something that you have to be judicious about."

Four days after Feingold announced the resolution on the Senate floor, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa was the lone Democrat to lend his name to the proposal. At a news conference Thursday, Feingold conceded, "You know, many in my caucus don't want to talk about this.

<snip>

"Democrats have to focus on average voters and their needs and not get diverted by other things," said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who leads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "That's where we'll find success."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0603...



MFers... :grr:

[ninkasi]

29. At least he made a stand

Nobody else was doing anything, except letting * get away with his criminal wiretaps. The Republicans weren't going to do anything about it, and since we're the minority party we couldn't start investigations into Chimp's crimes. I'm glad that at least one senator was willing to come forward and publicly voice what we all know about Dubya.

For the other Democratic senators not to stand with Russ out of fear is deeply disappointing to me. Surely the low approval rates Dubya has now would reassure them that taking a stand wouldn't be as risky as they seem to believe. I also am disappointed that their actions are guided not by personal conviction, but by whether they will be considered "mean", and Republicans would be angry at them. Those aren't exactly stellar qualities for a United States senator to have.

[Trevelyan]

32. K&R Excellent! We keep asking why the Dems Don't DO Something before we

go over the cliff and when someone does, there are all these very weak arguments against standing up for Americans before they start reditioning Americans. These weak arguments give excuses for the DINOs. Stop it and think. Please. Acting on behalf of the American people, us, is so rare as opposed to blovating and then voting for bush's destruction of America. Piece by Piece. Somebody better do something quick and as Sandra Day O'Conner and Ruth Ginsberg have said in recent days, the bush crime family has even been threatening Supreme Court Justices and O'Conner had a close call with a heavy board nearly falling on her and Specter in 2003.

Not surprised at all!!! and where are their protection???

What kind of protection does the Congress and Supreme Court Justices receive? Is the Secret Service only for Presidents?

==O'Connor was almost killed in a July 4, 2003 ceremony. Check out the media control here.Looks like a failed attempted assassination gone down the memory hole.

Not many people know that Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor was nearly killed on July 4 of 2003 in Philadelphia during a ceremonial opening of the National Constitution Center. What a psy-ops event that would have been.

All the news articles have been scrubbed from online. I read the interviews when they were still available online with the stage hand union members who said that they warned that a 600 pound set piece was dangerous.

People were sent to the hospital and one was knocked unconscious.

The stage hands were used as patsies by an outside contractor who was warned by the stage hands that the set piece was dangerous.
www.nbc10.com/4july/2312737/detail.html

[radio4progressives]

39. 70% of Democrats Support Censure - 48% All Adult Voters Support Censure

That's a hell of a statistic.

Dems LOSE by not going forward with this, imo.

But worse than that, the American People lose their Rights as provided by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[DrGonzoLives]

42. Well, according to certain people here

Russ "distracted" all the lefty activists out there with censure, which means we lost the vote on ANWR.

I'll leave it to you to figure out the logic behind that.

[WildEyedLiberal]

43. I really don't think this post is fair, at all

It's certainly not fair to imply that there is no legitimate grounds on which to question whether Feingold went about this the right way.

Do I support a resolution to censure Bush? Absolutely, and I applaud Feingold for sponsoring it. HOWEVER: it is given, is it not, that we want such a resolution to pass, yes? What would be the point of introducing it if you had no intention of it passing? Like it or not, such a move would be considered grandstanding. So we have to assume, if Feingold is not grandstanding, that he truly wants to censure Bush and wants this to pass.

So, if you really want to pass something like this, wouldn't it make sense to build a coalition? I don't understand why you minimize the critique that he apparently didn't make this known to ANYONE until he dropped his bombshell on "This Week". Yeah, I'm quite sure the usual suspects would not have jumped on board - Reid, etc. But some WOULD have, and the more people you get on board - especially people who are not known to be considering an 08 run, like Boxer and Kennedy and Durbin - the stronger the censure looks. Whether you agree or disagree - and I disagree, because I think Feingold is a good guy - but it is easy to look at this the way it played out and dismiss this as an act of grandstanding precisely BECAUSE Feingold made no effort to get anyone else on board. It has the appearance of someone trying to score political points. I'm not saying that's why Feingold did it, but you can't just stick your head in the sand and deny that it looks mighty that way to a lot of people, and Feingold himself could have prevented that if he'd just made a better effort to get a few Dems behind him (and don't say no one would have, because three or four have already. I am sure those same three or four would have supported him had he approached them privately before Sunday).

Yes, the media was going to criticize Feingold for this no matter what, because that's what they do to Democrats who act like Democrats. But you know, it's completely legitimate for people to be unhappy with Feingold's public comments about Democrats "cowering" and "hiding." Fox News had a FIELD DAY with that. "Big fucking deal," you say, "it's Fox News, they hate Democrats, so what?" That may be true, but let them criticize Feingold for standing up to Bush - his comments distracted even from the censure itself and became the focus of a media whore circus crowing about the Democrats disunity and the lack of strategy in our party. Bad, bad move. Democrats SERIOUSLY need to learn Ronald Reagan's "eleventh commandment" which helped the Republicans gain their stranglehold on power: "THOU SHALT NOT CRITICIZE ANOTHER REPUBLICAN (IN PUBLIC)."

A day later Feingold seemed to back off his "cowards" comment, saying that it was still early and he hoped a lot of Dems would join on still. Okay, I applaud that comment, but it DOES show that he realizes how rash and ill-thought out the "cowering" comment was. Look how the blogosphere jumped all over it like ravening jackals on a carcass - for a day, the issue wasn't Bush's crimes which needed censure, it was "coward Democrats." How does divisiveness like that help hold Bush accountable? How does it help pass the censure?

So yes, I have a Kerry avatar. I also support censure. I think Feingold is a good guy and you will NEVER hear me criticize his liberal credentials. HOWEVER: I object to the premise of this thread, which is that it is not possible to have a legitimate criticism of the way Feingold went about this, or to suggest that there are better, more tactful ways to have built a coalition to censure Bush's crimes. Once again, on the idiotic blogosphere, the focus is on "coward Democrats," NOT Bush or his crimes. Like it or not, you need all those "coward Democrats" plus several Republicans to pass a censure on Bush. I don't like Reid, but common sense dictates that calling him "cowering" in public is not the best way to encourage him to vote for your proposal. In politics, as in real life, you exhaust all avenues of diplomacy before you go to war. It is evident that Feingold did not do that, and so it looks like we're going to bring this censure to a vote with the coalition we have now, instead of one that could have been gained with a little honey instead of vinegar.

Oh, and for what it's worth, Johnny, I've seen you engage in unnecessary insulting of Kerry before, so you should think of that before you throw this "people with other candidates' avatars are criticizing Feingold" nonissue around. It was your first response in my thread from Monday - you chose to insult Kerry because you thought I had insulted Feingold. Once we talked it over, you acknowledged that you liked Kerry AND Feingold, but your obvious favorite is Feingold, but you will support them both when they do good things. I agree. I like Feingold, so please don't pretend I don't, or that I want this to fail, because I have a Kerry avatar. I think Feingold is one of our best. I also have a legitimate criticism about the way this was handled, and honestly, if I can't share that view on a Democratic party messageboard, where can I share it? For what it's worth, if I were a public official, I would not get on TV and call out Feingold like Dayton did - but I am not, I'm just a girl who posts on DU who offers her opinion - take it or leave it - of current events. And my opinion is that censure is a good idea but it seems to have been bungled in the planning stages.

[JohnnyCougar]

46. When did I insult Kerry?

I volunteered for him in 2004. I like Kerry. The only thing that ever pissed me off about Kerry was his ambiguous stand on Iraq. He should have just stood up and said "look, President Bush was totally wrong about going to war in Iraq." Everything else about Kerry I have liked.

As far as consulting other Dems, Feingold speaks for what he believes in. He wants to make standing up to Bush a big issue, and if he goes and does it himself, it makes it look even easier for other Democrats to do it too. If one lone Senator can stand up to Bush and succeed, certainly the whole party can succeed as well.

And Feingold's censure has been a success so far. Look at how much attention it drew to Bush breaking the law. It could have drawn more had Democrats supported Feingold. Now the GOP media is trying to spin it like Feingold is a leper because of this. I blame that on other Democrats, not Feingold. The polls support Russ.

[WildEyedLiberal]

47. I think all we disagree on

... is whether or not it was a good idea to propose a censure by oneself. I say no, you say yes. Either way I hope it succeeds.

Now it is time for me to go drink a green beer and sing Irish drinking songs. It's St. Patrick's Day - if there's ANY day of the year to go out and get trashed and forget about the royal assfucking Bush is giving American, today is it.

Here's a green beer for you. Cheers! :toast:

[kiteinthewind]

44. Thank you, JohnnyCougar!! I couldn't agree more!!!

BTW, where can I download the Draft Feingold banner? He is a TRUE Patriot!
:patriot: :kick:

[pat_k]

45. Impeachment points - most are transferable to censure

To Impeach, or Not Impeach?
That's the Wrong Question
http://thedeanpeople.org/impeachment-clobber-rationalizations.html

Impeachment:
A Campaign's Tactical Nuke
http://thedeanpeople.org/impeachment_candidates.html

[iconoclastNYC]

48. K&R

Excellent post.

[blm]

50. May I ask an explanation why those like me who are FOR censure are

attacked because we think it's wrong for Feingold to offer it as an alternative to impeachment ?

And don't pretend he's not, because his pres conference transcript says he wants censure and then move on - and that he is talking the moderate approach because he thinks impeachment during a time of war is wrong.

Or didn't you READ his own words from the press conference?

[jsamuel]

54. I don't think so, how many times has he said "first step"

while I understand what you are saying and why you think that, I don't think that Feingold is rulling out impeachment, but is getting the ball rolling by proposing censure. Get them to admit to the little lies (censure) so that you can prove the big ones (impeachment).

[blm]

56. He said censure and MOVE ON - he's not FOR impeachment.

He thinks it's wrong in a time of war. He is not going to set himself up for flip-flop charges later. He made his point clear.

[jsamuel]

58. I don't agree, he said "at this point"

he is leaving the path to impeachment open

[blm]

60. He SAID censure and MOVE ON - impeachment is wrong in a time of war.

.

[radio4progressives]

121. Maybe because Feingold knows that Impeachment Will Never Happen?

Impeachment is not going to happen. period, end of story.

Let's say for arugment sake that suddendly the folks who own Diebold and Choicepoint and Seqoia and such are suddenly wanting for the Democrats to be in power - and promises to hand us a victory in the mid terms in November - and so we win all 15 seats in Congress that we're desperately eyeing to achieve.

Let's say, that none of the election results are challenged because the vote tabulations matched the polling - etc. So let's say Dems have a major victory in Congress, in November 2006.

Winter recess occurs, Congress begins their new session 2 1/2 months or so later in late January or early Feburary.

But wait! President Bush is still in office! He and Karl Rove and everyone else knows that we've been chomping on the bit to begin impeachment hearings immediately ...

hmm.

Think about this for a minute. Do you honestly believe that the puppet masters are going to allow our attention to be devoted to impeachment?

Given what these people have been doing, are doing, and are capable of doing, do you honestly believe that they're not going to do everything in their power to prevent impeachment proceedings to occur by invoking fear of terrorists strikes or other events to prevent this from occuring?

And even if the Bush Co does absolutely nothing to obstruct impeachment proceedings, (yeah right) given that these proceedings take so damn long, and obstruction by the White House is their M.O., before you know it, the next (2008) election cycle will be upon us, so focus and campaigning for that will be the order and priority of the day - the new mantra will be vote a Democrat into office, and "elections have consequences" will be preached .

I think Feingold knows very well that impeachment is never going to occur, even under a Democratic party controlled Congress, given all that he knows behind the scenes, and so the very least that should be done (and can be done) to hold this administration accountable, (and even possibly to mandate a Cease and Desist order) is to introduce a resolution to Censure.

The bottom line is a Democratically controlled House of Represenatives will not yield impeachment results and that's the long and short of it.

That sad reality will have other political implications that may eventually destroy the party, and they haven't even figured that out yet.

[ProSense]

51. Feingold said exactly the opposite: impeachment is bad for the country

"it may not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the
president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong."

Senator Russ Feingold Holds a News Conference
On His Resolution To Censure President Bush

March 16, 2006
TRANSCRIPT

NEWS CONFERENCE

U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL FEINGOLD (D-WI)
WASHINGTON, D.C.

SPEAKER: U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL FEINGOLD (D-WI)


Snip...

QUESTION: Senator, this resolution, if it were passed, would
have no legal effect.

FEINGOLD: No.

QUESTION: So the only thing that would affect the NSA program,
if it's illegal, is to cut off the funding? You don't support that,
do you?

FEINGOLD: Well, there are several things that could affect the
program. First of all, one would hope, if this passes, that the
president would acknowledge what Congress has said and would bring the
program within FISA, which is what he should do.

Another approach, of course, is the legal system, is hoping that
we could get some kind of a court order and a response in the legal
system ordering the president to come within the law.

So I don't think that necessarily the idea of cutting off funding
-- even cutting off funding, how are you going to enforce that? If
the president has inherent power, he'll just shift some money around.
He'll just keep doing it. I mean, that's the problem with this
doctrine. If the president isn't going to acknowledge that a law we
passed, such as FISA, binds him, why should the cutting off of funding
affect him?

QUESTION: Senator, for those who are your critics who would
liken this or they talk about your central resolution in the same
breath that they talk about impeachment, and just say this is nothing
but one step ahead of impeachment. How do you counter that,
especially when they're using it as a weapon before the midterms to
say: The Democrats get in power, you're going to see impeachment.

FEINGOLD: Clearly, I chose to pursue censure rather than
impeachment, certainly at this point, because I believe at this point
it's a way to help us positively resolve this issue.

In other words, without getting the country in the middle of a
huge problem, like we had with the attempted Clinton impeachment, we
have a passing of a resolution of censure, and hopefully the president
would acknowledge it and say that he maybe went too far, and we would
be able to move forward and stop worrying about this and get a pledge
from the president that he's going to come within the law or make
proposals to change the law to allow it.

I think this actually is in the area of an impeachable offense.
I think it is right in the strike zone of what the founding fathers
thought about when they talked about high crimes and misdemeanors.

But the Constitution does not require us to go down that road,
and I hope that in a sense I'm a voice of moderation on this point,
where I'm saying it may not be good for the country to do this, it may
not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the
president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong.

But what we can't do is just ignore the wrongful conduct. So
this is a reasonable road. And anybody who argues this is a sort of
prelude to impeachment forgets the history of the Clinton impeachment,
where censure was offered by some, especially Democrats. Senator
Feinstein offered a censure resolution of President Clinton after the
impeachment trial as an alternative because impeachment was regarded
by many as too drastic of a step.


Snip...


QUESTION: Do you see any chance whatsoever that your resolution
would be passed by this Republican Senate?

FEINGOLD: I'd be pretty surprised. But this president,
presumably, will be president for several years. And it is very
possible that others will later on control the Congress. And this is
something that could be examined at different points.

If the president changes course and indicates that he understands
that this was not lawful and that he should not have done it, then it
becomes less important.

But if he continues to assert not only this but other extreme
executive power doctrines, it will continue to be important to push
back and to ask the president to return to the law.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006316.html

[jsamuel]

55. Why didn't you bold this? - "certainly at this point" - that is important

is it not?

He is intensionally leaving room for impeachment.

[ProSense]

77. I forgot to bold this

And anybody who argues this is a sort of
prelude to impeachment forgets the history of the Clinton impeachment,
where censure was offered by some, especially Democrats. Senator
Feinstein offered a censure resolution of President Clinton after the
impeachment trial as an alternative because impeachment was regarded
by many as too drastic of a step.

[antigone382]

120. "If the president changes course" is the key phrase for me here

From your post:

"If the president changes course and indicates that he understands
that this was not lawful and that he should not have done it, then it
becomes less important."

Feingold is making it clear that if and only if Bush were to change his course of action in response to censure would impeachment then be off the table. What Feingold is doing is smart, giving Bush a chance to improve his behavior before coming out with the big guns; he appears reasonable and moderate. Of course we can be relatively sure that Bush won't respond to censure, but in that case Feingold has kept impeachment as an option.

[FogerRox]

52. check in here to cheer RUSS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2519614

[kiteinthewind]

61. Stand up for Russ!! Woot! Woot! Woot!!

:patriot:

[karynnj]

57. It's also a bit disingenuous when one of the longest threads

started on Monday - was asking Why Kerry hadn't backed Feingold. Later in the week, there was another that asked whether Kerry had enough time to review it.

It sure seems like someone wanted the Kerry supporters to post. As it was we repeated all we knew, that early Monday when asked, he said he hadn't seen it yet (or something to that effect). He was in Onio for the Small Business Association. The only other thing that anyone knew was that his offce said he was for it. (Given no announcement - it likely meant he would vote for it) Kerry has said often since December that Bush broke the law.

I don't recall that Kerry people posted "Why won't Feingold (or any random Democrat) back Kerry on the DSM investigation"? There would have been more justification to do this as Kerry did lobby his peers to sign that letter. Feingold didn't ask his peers to sign before he went to the floor - after saying he would do this on ABC.

I would bet if you go to all the threads on this, you will find more posts bashing Kerry on this than bashing Feingold. There are many posts that should not be counted as bashing for either - it is valid to argue stategy.

[FogerRox]

63. Kerry has been around longer- easier to find something to bash him for

On Nov 3rd 2004 my entire office was watching TV when Kerry conceded. Many of us were from different states, who came to work for Kerry in FLorida. I quit my job in NJ to come to FLorida. The entire staff was sore at Kerry that day.

Russ has never been in that position, so to me its comparing apples & oranges.

I am still sore at Kerry for quiting so quickly, but because of my feelings I try to give Kerry a break now and then. Sometimes.

[karynnj]

67. This time though - it was a new thing- backing Feingold

Kerry had not, like some Democrats, critisized Feingold. He had been one of those saying Bush broke the law and his office was saying he was a "yes". There was no excuse to be bashing him on this. I imagine that if he would have gone up and added him name as a sponsor on Monday and gone on talk shows (with Feingold's knowledge) and tried to sell the country on this - people would be ranting that this was Feingold's and Kerry was stealing the spot light.

I hope as time goes by, you consider what Kerry's options really were - Kerry looked absolutely devastated when he conceded. I actually felt far more cheated and sad for what we lost after watching the concession. It must have been really heartbreaking for all of you in that office. I did far far less - there wasn't a lot to do in NJ. Election day was so fantastic until about 8 pm or so. I was helping out in Morristown - and people knew the exit polls. It was so amazing - people from the office took a big Kerry sign out to the green and people were honking in support. (The wave of euphoria was incredible - but you know the rest.)

[FogerRox]

71. some still carry a grudge against Kerry-- which is why

there are the bashers.

I know what Kerrys options were-- his own advisors either lied to Kerry or were so stupid as to not have boots on the ground in Ohio, which is an utter falshood, Lawyers were in every polling place in FL- And I'm sure in Ohio too.

Kerry needs to patch it up with those he burned if he expects to run for the White House again. There is too much bad blood. Kerry started to clear the Air with the Alito filibuster. But thats not enough.

I think what you are seeing is that bad blood at DU. Only Kerry can clear the air. NOt you, not me. Only Kerry.

[free_belmont]

64. He has my support

any Democrat but John Kerry.

[politicasista]

68. Yawn. Dem bashing is so tiresome n/t

[free_belmont]

75. Because I support all Democrats

except one particular candidate, am I now Dem bashing?

Get real or get lost.

[Vektor]

80. Oh wait...

You said below to me that there were others.
So, are there others, or is there just one?

[free_belmont]

82. if you don't support Bush

you don't support America, according to Repugs.

If you don't support Kerry, you don't support Dems, according to you.

Bad company, my friend.

[Vektor]

84. Are you sure you mean me?

I never made that statement.

"If you don't support Kerry, you don't support Dems, according to you."

Please reread my posts to you. I never said anything about John Kerry in particular. Did you mean to respond to somebody else?

[Vektor]

69. Really?

ANY? I'm curious as to what you think of Lieberman? Can you eleborate?

[free_belmont]

73. Lieberman is not a Democrat

he's a fraud, and I can name a few others who also call themselves Democrats. He has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination, anyway. And neither does Kerry.

[Vektor]

79. Wow...

Pretty strong words. Who are the others you are referring to? And who is it that you DO like, Dem-wise?

[free_belmont]

81. except for Kerry

all Democrats with a chance to win are A OK to me, satisfied?

[Vektor]

83. Not really...

There certainly is no need to be short with me. You put a pretty strong statement out there, and it seemed you wanted a response. I'm just confused as to how you told another poster on this thread that there were a "few" Dems that you were referring to.

"...and I can name a few others who also call themselves Democrats."

Also, these posts, and a few others like it are very anti-Democrat, attacking the party as a whole.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=669028#674639

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=667612#674588

Who are the other Dems who you are directing your rage at, and why?

[free_belmont]

86. if you must know

Zell Miller for being a traitor, Joe Lieberman for being a Republican and John Kerry for voting to give Bush war powers and for being a coward the day after election 2004.

I also think Hillary Clinton is not a progressive candidate, she has an appalling voting record, voted to give Bush war powers, voted for the bankruptcy bill, etc etc. Bill Clinton fairs better but not by much.

Howard Dean, Kucinich, Al Gore, Kennedy, Boxer, 99% of all black Democrats in Congress are heroes to me. So is Feingold now.

[Vektor]

87. Zell....

I think he just straight up went senile. I never saw him as a Democrat, though rumor has it, many years ago, he was actually ok.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mass]

92. You support Lieberman over Kerry? Good for you

[free_belmont]

107. Lieberman is not a Democrat

he's a fraud. Plus he has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination, anyway. Neither does Kerry.

[MH1]

117. No chance? Surely you jest.

Connecticut has supported Lieberman for how many Senate terms? Do you think they'll dump him now?

Oh do you mean the presidential nomination in 2008? Who said he's even running?

Lieberman *IS* a Democrat, whether you like it or not, and he votes with the Dem caucus on most issues. He just sucks on the issues of war and kissing Bush more than most. He's actually one of our best on the environment.

[free_belmont]

119. Lieberman is a Democrat

the same way Zell Miller was.

A fraud. And yes I meant the presidential nomination in 2008. Who said he's NOT running?

Lieberman is a Bush enabler.

[Vektor]

70. I know, Johnny.

It sucks huh? Watching your guy get trashed, ESPECIALLY when he does something brave, courageous, and good. It's actually quite maddening.

I feel your pain.

:toast:

Well written post - have a Happy Saint Patrick's day, Irish or not.

[NoodleyAppendage]

72. Thank you!!! I got tired of being labelled a freep for supporting Feingold

Feingold is only pissing off some around here because the TRUTH HURTS. That truth lies in the fact that the majority of our party members are spineless political hacks, who care more about their own political existence than the foundations of our Constitutional democracy. I firmly believe that Feingold will go down in history as one of the sole individuals who was brave enough to speak truth to power. He makes me proud to be an American. I'm afraid I can't say the same for Hillary, Lieberman, Biden, Kerry, and all the other Democratic leaders who first put their "finger in the air" before making any decision.

J

[bvar22]

76. K&R

Noticed that myself.
:dem:

[cascadiance]

85. Feingold has stated he was concerned about his strategy being "blunted"...

Look at this Washington Post article here. Many here have the perspective that Feingold did something that was "the wrong way" to accomplish something that most here feel was the right thing to do. The press and other Dems are reinforcing this perspective. If you hear this quote of Feingold though, I think what happened reflects more Feingold's frusration of trying to play by the rules for the last five years and "wait his turn" with current leadership and other powerful elements of the party to show a united front at one point to do what he was wanting to do here (which clearly has a lot of support amongst the American people). From this quote, it sounds like he felt that a pattern of control has been something he's had to fight in the past and felt that in order for him to actually follow through on a censure action, even though he might have LIKED to have done it with more coordinated support, he perceived that with the way things have been going with current Democratic leadership, that this wasn't going to happen if he followed conventions, and therefore did things the way he did, knowing full well that they'd try to come back at him this way.

I say this because what's shown over the last few years to be consistent in terms of track record is the Dems not standing up as a principled opposition to this administration. We've seen it time and time again with the war, the Patriot Act, the Alito and Roberts nominations, etc. During this time, Russ has tried to follow the rules and I really can't think of other instances where he's not tried to work with his colleagues more publicly. Given that, I'm more inclined to believe that he felt that IN THIS INSTANCE, to get things done, he had to work around the party leadership on this. The track record of he and his fellow Democrats I believe support him on this:

Read this article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601303.html

Note the following paragraph:

And it's a sign of Feingold's view of some of his Democratic colleagues that he defended his decision not to let them in on his plan. Had they known what he was up to, he said, "they would have planned a strategy to blunt this."

Additionally note in another article all of the following Democrats that chose to censure Bill Clinton! If lying about a BJ warranted censure from one's own party, then why isn't all of the offenses and breaking the law by Bush subject to the same action by the OPPOSITION party?

From: http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/031206.htm#031506

Daniel Akaka
Max Baucus
Byron Dorgan
Dick Durbin
Dianne Feinstein
Daniel Inouye
Jim Jeffords
Ted Kennedy
John Kerry
Herb Kohl
Mary Landrieu
Carl Levin
Joe Lieberman
Blanche Lincoln
Barbara Mikulski
Patty Murray
Jack Reed
Harry Reid
Jay Rockefeller
Chuck Schumer
Ron Wyden

The bottom line is I believe like a couple of posters at the top, Feingold is now seen as a threat to the corporate establishment. It's not just a "personal" threat to them that they are implying with their public statements of him not wanting to work by the rules. It is his independence (since he takes less campaign money from special interest groups than they, etc.) and his growing popularity in the base of the Democratic Party that's increasingly becoming aware of the "hidden agenda" of some in it to serve others that are more the special interests that pay their way than serving the Democratic constituency and Americans in general. I think they're starting to become aware that more and more Americans are starting to know what the DLC is (I really didn't before Bush was in power!), and why it is a cancer to this party in terms of putting a *wishy washy* agenda, purposely this way, which tries to keep people "complacent" and not give them anything really to mobilize under. Feingold is threatening to be the lightening rod for what constituents see as "the way out" for increasingly frustrated Dems but which is also dangerous to continued corporate special interest control over the party.

I think its really hard to see who amongst all of these Democrats (or even people outside of the pols themselves) is really behind this sort of "pushing" the corporate agenda around, and who is just running scared, and who might otherwise support Feingold if they felt he could render those wielding this agenda powerless to take away their offices by taking away their campaign financing resources. I have a feeling that if and when we can get rid of this dangerous DLC cancer control that is in place, we might later see many of these running scared to come forth and apologize in a measured way for their inability to buck the system the way Feingold's been trying to do so, and to note that his difficulty in doing so is precisely why they were afraid to do it themselves. I only hope that this is in the near future, so I can have a remaining life span that can enjoy life later on instead of dreading a coming dictatorship.

[msgadget]

91. His independence IS a problem for them, whoever 'they' are

Just who are the 'strategists' and 'former Clinton aides' who leak to the media?? Are they the same ones giving advice? If so, why do they keep cutting their party off at the knees by reinforcing the fractured, weak image with their gossip about in-fighting and indecision? Seems counterproductive until you examine who they're gossiping about.

There's a distinct with-us-or-against-us stance and I've seen a sharp rise in the derisive use of the words liberal and left applied to dissenting voices online by other democrats. How, is that being achieved so effectively? HOW?

We're still the same, still waiting for the majority to shift, still supportive, yet now we are dividing. Outspoken, independent voices are blasted for working for a third party or for not supporting the passive strategy or - worse - for not being moderate. Did this trend naturally evolve?

[upi402]

89. Lots and lots of very dry powder

or is that very dry bullshit

[Beelzebud]

103. During Times Of Universal Deceit, Telling The Truth Becomes

A Revolutionary Act. --George Orwell.


Thanks for being a revolutionary, Senator Feingold.

[SaveElmer]

110. You are wrong on #'s 1 and 2...and correct on # 3 IMO...

Feingold did screw up not lining up suporters first...

And Feingold himself implies this is an alternative to Impeachment. And the political reality is, if we take back congress in 2006, the American people are not gonna want us making Impeachment our priority.

I do not believe Feingold was grandstanding however. He made a calculated decision on the best way to pursue this. I believe he was wrong, but don't criticize his motivation.

As to public support, yes, in a vacum censure is supported. However I would be willing to bet if you gave them a list of issues and asked them to rank them in terms of importance, it would not rank high!

[free_belmont]

114. which Democrat do you think

he should've asked support of? Hillary? You have a better chance to hit the jackpot tonight. She would kill her first born first before making a move which didn't go through 1000 focus groups.

And since when do you speak for the American people? Polls show the majority supports impeachment if Bush the giggling killer lied about Iraq (this is just one of his many violations).

What are, in your opinion, the issues of major importance?

[SaveElmer]

123. Another straw man...and more Hillary obsession...

How about Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer...to name a few...

And of course...as usual my comments are ignored and words put into my mouth so you can refute an argument I did not make...

Show me where I claimed to "speak for the American people." I simply offered my OPINION as to what the relative level of importance would likely be...IN MY OPINION...

My guess would be that if we do get the majority back, the American people would want us to concentrate on rolling back some of the disastrous policies this crew has put into place...

Off the top of my head...

Repeal the Bush Tax Cut
Re-authorize the Endangered Species act without gutting it
A real energy policy, not one based on raping our national treasures
Real efforts at securing social security, medicaid and the other critical programs Americans have come to depend on.
Repealing rules the interior department has put into place to cut down old growth forests, and to build logging road into wilderness areas...


My bet is that he American people would put this kind of stuff ahead of an impeachment effort.

[FrenchieCat]

112. I support someone else for 2008 (if he runs).....and I support

Feingold on this move.

Until 2008, Democrats have to work together and actions taken cannot be a "competition".

If we can't support more than one individual's actions, than we are petty, stoopid and screwed! :hi:

[Vektor]

122. Hi Frenchie!

How's by you? :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

127. Good, Good!

:hi: